Clearly Mittens misspoke because he made a factual error. It was not just an ideological perspective. Obviously, millions of folks who don't pay income taxes will be voting for Mittens. Heck the correlation between wealth and partisan affiliation is a weak as it has ever been in the Fruited Plain - certainly in my lifetime at least, and my parents' lifetime as well. Thank you.

A factual error? So, in non-lawyer speak, you're claiming he was lying? Or do you think he was so misinformed to believe something that, as you point out, is wildly off target.

He just had brain lock for a moment. Have you ever said anything that just came out wrong? His larger point that the more folks there are dependent on government largess, the stronger the headwinds for a Pub, is true - at least until insolvency ensues.

Rick Perry's oops was a brain lock. And if you'll look up the thread on it from way back, I defended him on it. Brain chemistry is a funny thing. Mitt's statement was not an off the cuff remark or in any way a misrepresntation of the GOP position. They've been making the same claim for a long time now. OMGZ half of people don't pay taxes. Nevermid that this is not true. The problem with telling different people different things is that sooner or later the truth comes out and you look like a fool. And that must be what the fuss is all about, because, again, it's a standard GOP talking point. And we're all benefeciaries of government largess, just as we are all contributers. These days, it just isn't possible to live in a cabin on Walden Pond.

Can the patently ridiculous piece of Newspeak that is 'misspeaking' please disappear down the memory hole, ideally yesterday?

No, because in this case it is true - Mittens misspoke. Surely Mittens knows, and knew then, that not everybody who does not pay income taxes will be voting for Obama. Now, you may think what he said was a nasty slam on those who do not pay income taxes (like retired old people and young folks in college, and those working at a low wage rate), but that is another matter, and of course what hurt him politically.

When will the president man up and take responsibility for at least the last year or two? For a change, Obama should be more like Romney and take responsibility:

(CNN) — Mitt Romney said he was “completely wrong” when he argued that nearly half of Americans were “victims” and dependent on government.

The admission came Thursday as the GOP presidential candidate sought to clarify his controversial “47%” comments.

“Clearly in a campaign with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you’re going to say something that doesn’t come out right,” Romney said on Fox News. “In this case, I said something that’s just completely wrong.”

On Fox News Thursday night, Romney was asked what he would have said if the president had brought up the controversial statements–which is when the GOP nominee went as far as to say he was “wrong.”He then argued that, if elected, he would represent all Americans, not just half.

“I absolutely believe, however, that my life has shown that I care about 100% and that’s been demonstrated throughout my life. And this whole campaign is about the 100%. When I become president, it will be helping the 100%.”

Can we just insert some facts into this discussion- as in, what Romney really said? Let me just paste the actual text of the quote, if you will.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax…[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. "

Am I wrong in reading that Romney said that there are 47 percent of people with a series of characteristics, which include:(a) they're dependent on government(b) they believe they're victims(c) they believe government has a responsibility to care for them(d) they believe they're entitled to health care, food, housing, and "you-name-it"(e) they will vote for Obama(f) they pay no income tax

It seems to me that Romney's statements were quite clear. It seems to me that he was speaking emotionally, and got carried away when he mentioned the income tax portion. He was not saying that people who don't pay income tax are all for Obama. He was saying that 47 of people who will never vote for him pay no income tax. Logically, it's absurd, but it was more about emotion and sentiment, even though he is using the language of facts. Does that make sense?

Logged

A New Chapter"I feel like Paulette Revere — the recession is coming, the recession is coming!” - Hillary Clinton, April 3, 2008

What Mittens was getting at, was those who game the government rather than sweat for a living won't vote for him really. The "gamer" percentage number is far lower of course - and some of those will be voting for Mittens too in fact who don't like Obama for whatever reason. The whole thing was a total cf.

No, he said something stupid - and inadvertently revealing about his worldview - which is not the same thing at all.

We just won't agree on this one Al, other than that both of us found it to be a statement as to which we don't subscribe. I don't think Mittens begrudges old folks living off their SS, etc, or as he said, helping those who are physically unable to work, and so on.

Just who needs more tough love out there is probably an area where our Venn diagrams are not co-extensive, and just possibly don't intersect at all outside the plutocrat cohort, but that is off topic.

What Mittens was getting at, was those who game the government rather than sweat for a living won't vote for him really. The "gamer" percentage number is far lower of course - and some of those will be voting for Mittens too in fact who don't like Obama for whatever reason. The whole thing was a total cf.

Errr-- aren't the more obvious "dots" when someone says that 47% won't vote for him, that it is taken to mean Obama has a floor of 47%? If I say that "wow, these refinery explosions in California mean by premium gas prices are $6.66", I am talking about a financial subject. I am not thinking about the Bible just because it also happens to include a number with the same three digits, even if I mention that later.

There are no insinuations here. What Romney made a series of simple declarative assertions, clearly and in plain English. There is no need for anyone to translate anything. Or is that now too much to handle as well?

Logged

A New Chapter"I feel like Paulette Revere — the recession is coming, the recession is coming!” - Hillary Clinton, April 3, 2008

What Mittens was getting at, was those who game the government rather than sweat for a living won't vote for him really. The "gamer" percentage number is far lower of course - and some of those will be voting for Mittens too in fact who don't like Obama for whatever reason. The whole thing was a total cf.

Yeah, Romney misspoke any way you slice or dice it.

Romney should have generalized instead of sticking a 47% figure with his comments. The real number is probably more like 20-30% (e.g., Obama Phone Lady, etc.), but it is impossible to know for sure.

That said, Romney is a good person who cares about 100% of the country. He will be a president for 100% even if half of the 100% do not back him.

« Last Edit: October 05, 2012, 11:40:21 pm by Politico »

Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

Mitt Romney's political history tells me two basic things. He is smart enough to have considerable investment and sales skills and some decent governing skills, but during a campaign, he will say anything he has to in order to win. In this instance, he didn't misspeak, he didn't have a brain lock. He said a mean-spirited thing at a donor function to pull some more money out of pockets because he thought it would appeal to his audience, many of whom probably relate to the idea that the CEO of a company (him as president) only has a responsibility to the shareholders in the company (the taxpayers). Except that the government isn't a company, and his characterization of people who don't pay taxes was both absurd and demeaning. Does he really believe it? I haven't the slightest earthly idea what Mitt Romney really believes, and listening to him talk over extended periods of time has never helped me figure it out either. Now he says it was "completely wrong." I agree with that in part. But the other part is that it was totally asinine.

I agree with Anvi's post with regards to this whole 47% thing. I felt like odds were, he was saying things that would appeal to the wealthy donors he was speaking to. I'm not entirely sure why people are saying that in front of donors whose money his campaign needs, that it was a moment where he is actually saying what he "clearly believes." He's still campaigning in that room.

Mitt said he was wrong, and that he would be the President for 100% of Americans.

You will just have to trust Mitt on this one.

Yeah, and I would just add that Mitt has spent countless hours and resources in volunteer activities over the past forty years. He did not do any of this volunteering for political purposes, which is why he refuses to highlight it for political points today.

Romney IS a savvy numbers guy and an exceptional businessman, but he is also a caring person who hates to see anybody struggle, let alone struggle and think they are dependent upon the government when they are not.

Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

Clearly Mittens misspoke because he made a factual error. It was not just an ideological perspective. Obviously, millions of folks who don't pay income taxes will be voting for Mittens. Heck the correlation between wealth and partisan affiliation is a weak as it has ever been in the Fruited Plain - certainly in my lifetime at least, and my parents' lifetime as well. Thank you.

A factual error? So, in non-lawyer speak, you're claiming he was lying? Or do you think he was so misinformed to believe something that, as you point out, is wildly off target.

He just had brain lock for a moment. Have you ever said anything that just came out wrong? His larger point that the more folks there are dependent on government largess, the stronger the headwinds for a Pub, is true - at least until insolvency ensues.

Everybody is dependent on the government, in some form or another. "Rugged individualism" is a myth that has largely been manufactured in recent decade to justify redistributing wealth from the working and middle classes to the rich and powerful. And besides, there are tons of lower or middle class people (most of them white) who have taken full advantage of government assistance, yet vote Republican because they don't want "Other" people to get the same benefits that they themselves enjoy.

Clearly Mittens misspoke because he made a factual error. It was not just an ideological perspective. Obviously, millions of folks who don't pay income taxes will be voting for Mittens. Heck the correlation between wealth and partisan affiliation is a weak as it has ever been in the Fruited Plain - certainly in my lifetime at least, and my parents' lifetime as well. Thank you.

A factual error? So, in non-lawyer speak, you're claiming he was lying? Or do you think he was so misinformed to believe something that, as you point out, is wildly off target.

He just had brain lock for a moment. Have you ever said anything that just came out wrong? His larger point that the more folks there are dependent on government largess, the stronger the headwinds for a Pub, is true - at least until insolvency ensues.

Everybody is dependent on the government, in some form or another. "Rugged individualism" is a myth that has largely been manufactured in recent decade to justify redistributing wealth from the working and middle classes to the rich and powerful. And besides, there are tons of lower or middle class people (most of them white) who have taken full advantage of government assistance, yet vote Republican because they don't want "Other" people to get the same benefits that they themselves enjoy.

I actually largely agree with this, although the way I would phrase the reverse Robin Hood thing, is that the rich and the powerful and those in neighborhoods adjacent are the biggest welfare queens of them all. That includes myself. I have probably received more government largess vis a vis the pension plan laws, the tax code past when you could write off real estate depreciation against ordinary income, the farm subsidies, the housing rehabilitation subsidies, Prop 13, and on and on, than the rest of you combined I suspect. Thank heavens there are not too many of them/us!

I agree with Anvi's post with regards to this whole 47% thing. I felt like odds were, he was saying things that would appeal to the wealthy donors he was speaking to. I'm not entirely sure why people are saying that in front of donors whose money his campaign needs, that it was a moment where he is actually saying what he "clearly believes." He's still campaigning in that room.

He has a history of saying what he thinks the audience wants to hear.

That's precisely why altho I had hoped to be able to support Romney after he won the primaries, I ultimately was unable to do so. Romney is altogether too eager to shift what he says to fit his audience. If I didn't know better I'd think his last name was Rorschach instead of Romney since he tries so hard to be an ink blot in which people can see what they want to see.

Logged

Quote from: Ignatius of Antioch

He that possesses the word of Jesus, is truly able to bear his very silence. — Epistle to the Ephesians 3:21a

anvi is right, he neither misspoke nor revealed his inner worldview. He was telling these people what he believed they were looking for in the leadership of the country. And whether or not he believes it, it's the kind of thing his Republican allies in Congress would expect him to act upon as President, which he would do to some extent.

This is possible because he has very little empathy so has nothing holding him back from making baseless smears like this--it's just business.